>>9372373There's just a lot of redundancy. You only need to read one of "How to Prove it"/"Book of Proof"/"Transition to Advanced Mathematics". Similarly you just need Enderton to learn set theory but that is an independent road you go down that doesn't really lead to calculus. Landua's "Foundations of Analysis: the Arithmetic of Whole, Rational, Irrational and Complex Number: A Supplement to Text-Books on the Differential and Integral Calculus" is just a repeat of Enderton's chapter 4&5; set theoretic construction of the numbers is cool to see once in your life but you don't need to see it done multiple time and it never comes up again. You just need one precalculus textbook so just read "Basic Mathematics". Polya is fine to read at anytime, skip Birkhoff unless you love synthetic geometry (it will never come up again, every geometry problem is done with algebra and calculus), and Stewart is just a preview of later math. John&Courant>Apostol>Spivak but there's nothing wrong with learning calculus with less rigor like with Lang's books; you'll do it with the full rigor later in an Analysis course.
